In a major development with wide-reaching implications for digital media, celebrity accountability, and youth welfare, the Supreme Court on August 1, 2025, issued notices to the Centre, all State Governments, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and TRAI over a plea demanding a complete ban on online betting platforms and a halt to celebrity endorsements promoting such apps.

 

The plea claims that unregulated betting portals are not only exploiting financial vulnerabilities but also thriving on the influence of celebrities who lend them credibility.

 

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Dr. K.A. Paul, who urged the Court to intervene in what he described as a “nationwide addiction crisis” fueled by online betting disguised as entertainment. The petition alleges that millions of Indians, including minors, are being drawn into gambling apps—often under the pretext of “fantasy sports” or “games of skill” with devastating consequences like debt traps and suicides.

 

One particularly alarming claim: over 1,000 suicide deaths reportedly linked to betting losses in Telangana alone, along with alleged FIRs against over two dozen celebrities, including actors and sportspersons, who endorsed betting platforms.

 

 

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh took note of the widespread public interest involved and agreed to examine the scope of governmental and regulatory failure.

 

While Justice Kant noted that “legislation alone cannot curb human behavior,” the bench nonetheless emphasized the need to address the unchecked growth of these platforms and their impact on society. The Court made it clear that the issue isn’t about individual morality but institutional responsibility.

 

The Court:

• Issued notices to ED, TRAI, Union Ministry of Electronics and IT, and all States.

• Called upon digital app marketplaces like Google and Apple to furnish their positions.

• Directed the matter to be listed on August 18, 2025, for further hearing.

 

This case touches multiple regulatory grey zones:

• Legal ambiguity around betting apps: Are they gambling platforms or games of skill?

• Accountability of public figures: Should celebrities promoting potentially harmful apps be criminally liable?

• Lack of uniform state-level regulation, leading to piecemeal enforcement and easy access.

• Digital advertising ethics, especially when endorsements blur the line between real-money gaming and safe play.

 

The petition also invoked the right to life under Article 21, arguing that unchecked access to betting platforms violates citizens’ fundamental right to live free from economic and mental exploitation.